Reaction: Supreme Court rules in favour of Google
The Supreme Court has unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s 2019 decision in the case Lloyd (Respondent) v Google LLC (Appellant) which allowed the claimant, Mr Lloyd, to serve a representative action on Google on behalf of over four million iPhone users who were seeking damages for ‘loss of control’ of personal data.
Today (10 November 2021), the Supreme Court has unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal’s 2019 decision in the case Lloyd (Respondent) v Google LLC (Appellant) which allowed the claimant, Mr Lloyd, to serve a representative action on Google on behalf of over four million iPhone users who were seeking damages for ‘loss of control’ of personal data.
The Supreme Court has confirmed that compensation in respect of non-trivial breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 (1998 Act) is only payable to the extent that a data subject has suffered material damage (i.e. financial loss) or mental distress. Contrary to the view of the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that data subjects should have a right to compensation for ‘loss of control’ of personal data under the 1998 Act.
The Supreme Court also found that the claim could not proceed due to the way it had been framed by the claimant in order to bring it within the scope of being a representative action.
Data lawyer at Browne Jacobson, Loren Hodgetts gave her reaction to the case:
“Whilst this case was heard under the 1998 Act, the principles will be relevant for the purposes of interpreting the meaning of damage under the GDPR.
“In a landscape where we are seeing an increasing number of compensation claims made by individuals against data controllers, this judgment provides a useful reminder that data subjects must show material damage (i.e. financial loss) or mental distress resulting from a breach in order to bring such claims.”
Browne Jacobson’s previous article on this case sets out the factual background in more detail.
Contact

Henrietta Scott
Head of Marketing
henrietta.scott@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2299
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
ICO consultation on fertility tracking apps
Opinion
Vicarious liability of amateur sports teams for player on player injuries
Legal Update
Part 36 combined offers – when are they beaten?
Published Article
UK: Legal issues with deepfakes
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s patent litigation team praised for being “dynamic” and a “major player” in IAM Patent 1000 guide
Legal Update
Employment alternative dispute resolution
Legal Update
Insolvency practitioners and trustee immunity
Guide
How to manage supply contracts and avoid disputes
Legal Update
New guidance for employers on Subject Access Requests published by the ICO
Legal Update
Ali Round 2 - High Court gives further guidance on causation and quantum for data breaches
Press Release
Browne Jacobson grows inheritance and trust dispute practice with partner hire
Press Release
Browne Jacobson welcomes former ICO lawyer to support growing UK&I data privacy and tech practice
Legal Update
Subsidy control lessons to be learnt from Bulb
Legal Update
Vicarious liability – don’t overlook the importance of close connection
Legal Update
Update on data protection claims - Austrian Post Case
Opinion
Practical points from High Court ruling that Tesco has infringed Lidl’s IP rights in its famous yellow circle logo
Published Article
O Shaped mindset when working with witnesses
Opinion
Mediation – remote or in person?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson launches specialist Ascensus programme for in house lawyers and business leaders
Opinion
Confirmation of Acas early conciliation in the context of multiple claim forms
Published Article
ClientEarth claim may expand scope of directors' duties
Opinion
Mopping up after a leak – how businesses can take steps to protect their confidential information
Legal Update
Cyber security and data breaches
Legal Update
Embargoed judgments: A professional word of caution
Press Release
Browne Jacobson’s intellectual property lawyers ranked experts in World Trademark Review guide 2023
Legal Update
Update on the Digital Services Act (“DSA”) – Important Dates and Deadlines Looming
Legal Update
Government publishes its proposals for expanding the Scope of the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - January 2023
Opinion
Civil court litigation 2023: Reforms on the horizon
Legal Update
Protecting children and their data in the online environment
Legal Update
Settlement agreements – what are the limitations?
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
Legal Update
Five “takeaways” in claims against mortgage brokers following Taylor v Legal & General Partnership Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 2475 (Ch)
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Opinion
The Future of Mediation
Published Article
Bruce Willis AI and the problem with deepfakes
A deepfake of Bruce Willis is advertising Russian mobile phones. Many great artistic and metaphysical questions are raised by this performance. However, this article is going to look at the intellectual property law implications, from a UK perspective.
Legal Update
DSA approved: Targeted Advertising Rules explained
Legal Update
Trigger happy when directors’ duties are the target?
In a judgment handed down yesterday the Supreme Court has affirmed that a so called “creditor duty” exists for directors such that in some circumstances company directors are required to act in accordance with, or to consider the interests of creditors. Those circumstances potentially arise when a company is insolvent or where there is a “probability” of an insolvency. We explore below the “trigger” for such a test to apply and its implications.
Legal Update
The Retained EU Law
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
Legal Update
Failure to comply with PD57AC — it can be costly!
Practice Direction 57AC (“PD57AC”) relates to witness evidence in trials and explicitly applies only to the Business and Property Courts. It applies to existing proceedings in which the witness statements for trial are signed on or after 6 April 2021.
Legal Update
Economic crime and cybercrime
It is clear that the digital landscape, often termed cyberspace, is a man-made environment, in which human behaviour dominates and where technology both influences and aids our role in it — through the internet, telecoms and networked computer systems, which are often interdependent. The extent to which any organisation is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack depends on how well these elements are aligned.
Opinion
Sequana: Supreme clarification on the duty owed to creditors
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the BTI v Sequana appeal and reviewed the existence, content and engagement of the so-called ‘creditor duty’; being the point at which the interest of creditors is said to intrude upon the decision-making of directors of companies in financial distress.